Saturday, December 19, 2009

Congratulations, America

Well, America, congratulations. You may just succeed in accomplishing what no other entity on the face of the earth could accomplish: your own destruction.

Ben Nelson sold his soul for thirty pieces of silver; now it appears that the Senate may pass the Monstrosity. Government health care is the point of no return. If it passes, I'll start pealing my eyes for some other scrap of land in the world that could be the new haven for freedom.

A free people cannot be destroyed - they can only surrender.

Congratulations, America. You're about to send up the white (red) flag.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

- Abraham Lincoln

Friday, December 18, 2009


Greta on Palin cutting her vacation short:

Palin's parents in Sandpoint, Idaho:

And I just thought this was hilarious:

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Palin: Happy Hanukkah


Todd and I would like to offer our best wishes to the Jewish community as they celebrate Hanukkah. Known as the Festival of Lights, Hanukkah commemorates the eight-day miracle that took place when the Temple in Jerusalem was rededicated. Though there was only enough consecrated oil for one day, the flame miraculously burned for eight – just long enough to prepare more.

This beautiful story is rich with life lessons for members of all faiths. With hope and dedication nothing is impossible, and the Almighty never abandons those who seek the light.

- Sarah Palin

“Trace the universe back to God’s power, and follow His power upstream to His wisdom.” - Max Lucado

The pictures are Sarah at a bill signing at Beth Sholom while she was Governor. Complete set here on Flickr.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

I Have Arrived

Ah ha! Caught in the act!

During a thread on the immaturity of the Alaskan bloggers the other night over at C4P, I made the following comments:
The only thing that really ticks me off about the Underworld is their constant obsession with Trig not wearing socks.

The people who would most likely advocate aborting a down syndrome child are frantic over his lack of socks.

Note to the insane: Nobody's going to die from bare feet! How on earth did my barefoot farmer ancestors manage to survive? Aahhhhhh!

My main beef is that it's none of their freaking business. Who made them the judge and jury over motherhood? This from the same people who tolerate scumbaggery of all other kinds.
Well, guess what? That caused the folks at Palingates (the same people obsessing over Palin taking a jet on her "bus" tour. The gall! She's deceiving the American people!) to put up a post to rebut me. Check it out:
Trig, Sarah Palin's prop -

Trig Palin was used as a prop by his "mother" during the vice presidential campaign, after the campaign and more recently during the "Going Rogue" book tour.

Commenters on liberal blogs have been concerned about the lack of proper attire for Trig when we observed that everybody else was nice and toasty in bad weather but Trig had no socks, no shoes and no hat.

Of course the Palinbots (C4P, who else?) immediately defended Sarah Palin's parenting skills:

"The only thing that really ticks me off about the Underworld is their constant obsession with Trig not wearing socks.

"The people who would most likely advocate aborting a down syndrome child are frantic over his lack of socks.

"Note to the insane: Nobody's going to die from bare feet! How on earth did my barefoot farmer ancestors manage to survive? Aahhhhhh!

"My main beef is that it's none of their freaking business. Who made them the judge and jury over motherhood? This from the same people who tolerate scumbaggery of all other kinds."

No, we don't advocate aborting children with Down Syndrome:

What it is, is that "they" cannot grasp that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. I think I missed the band of pro-choice people "advocating" for abortions. I am pro-choice, but did not have the extra tests done in my pregnancies that look for DS, even though I was the same age as Sarah during our (OK, my) last pregnancy. Why? Because if the baby were to have DS, I would not have aborted him, so why take the extra risk? I'm pro-choice. That means I believe it's NOT MY DECISION what other women do.

We don't like to see Trig dragged out of the bus at 11:45 pm to be paraded to the crowds when the temperature is 41 degrees. We worry about early intervention and appropriate therapies that would give Trig the best chance of an independent life later on. We wonder why Trig is often photographed without his glasses and hearing aids. We don't think it's a good idea for a vulnerable child to be passed from person to person and exposed to germs during the flu season. We worry about the number of air miles Trig is accumulating at such a tender age when he's more succeptible to the adverse effects of high altitudes. We are puzzled about his inability to eat solids.

It might be none of our freaking business, but we didn't make Trig into an object of worship and we wouldn't choose to have him so exposed for the sake of selling some books. Sarah Palin's words, from "Going Rogue":

"Please don’t let anything happen to this baby.

"It occurred to me, once and for all. I’m so in love with this child, please God, protect him! After all my doubts and fears, I had fallen in love with this precious child. The worst thing in the world would be that I would lose him. God knew what He was doing."

Does God still know what he's doing? Is the care of Trig to be left to God alone or is his "mother" going to do her bit?

We know Sarah Palin pays close attention to the blogs. If we're in any way instrumental in ensuring that Trig receives the care he deserves so she can deflect criticism, our job is done.

But I'm not holding my breath...
No socks! Call Child Protective Services!

Cracks me up. If Trig were constantly photographed with his glasses, these are the people who would be starting the rumors that she only puts them on Trig for the cameras - when the cameras are off, she viciously rips the glasses off of her infant and laughs maniacally while forcing him to look at things without lenses!

They lose their case in the first sentence: "Mother." (Quotation marks) Trig Truthers, extraordinaire.

It's funny on one hand; on the other it's seriously insulting. Who do these people think they are? I stand by my original statement - It's none of their freaking business.

No, I did not include a link. They don't need any more traffic.

I don't have any kids, but I've done my fair share of baby-sitting and I can tell you this - kids are pretty resilient. Walking around with bare feet is not going to be their death knell (try keeping their socks on!) and they have survived much worse than having their cute little chubby cheeks pinched by relatives. I was a kid once myself, and I endangered my own life unwittingly countless times. Give me a break.

Now, for the record, I was not actually talking about Palingates, but the anti-Palin crowd in general. It makes me sick the way these people pretend to be so concerned for Trig. I didn't take the time to research the positions of the authors of every single blog, I was just popping off out of my frustration. The anti-Palin blogs tend to be liberal, which are pro-choice (pro-abortion, despite their protestations to that label), and the vast majority of children diagnosed with down syndrome are killed before they have a chance to see the world. So, yes, I lumped them all in together.

Now I point out the obvious - These people are really this pathetic? They read the comments on another blog and felt the need to put up a post rebutting someone's comment?

Wow. Nothing better to do, I guess.

On the other hand, it's kinda cool to get the attention.

I actually have noticed that the anti-Palin blogs take screencaps off C4P and Palin's Facebook wall and post them on their sites. I'll admit, sometimes I pop off just to see if they'll post it. That was actually in the back of my mind when I wrote the Trig comments.

I laughed my butt off when I saw that they took the bait:)

Greener Than Thou? - UPDATED

The Gov vs. the Governator. Arnold spewed some of his evil carbon dioxide earlier today saying that Palin is way off base on climate change and that the rest of the world should follow the example of California.

(Blink. Pause.)


Ahem. Palin had this to say in response:

Why is Governor Schwarzenegger pushing for the same sorts of policies in Copenhagen that have helped drive his state into record deficits and unemployment? Perhaps he will recall that I live in our nation’s only Arctic state and that I was among the first governors to create a sub-cabinet to deal specifically with climate change.

While I and all Alaskans witness the impacts of changes in weather patterns firsthand, I have repeatedly said that we can’t primarily blame man’s activities for those changes. And while I did look for practical responses to those changes, what I didn’t do was hamstring Alaska’s job creators with burdensome regulations so that I could act “greener than thou” when talking to reporters.

- Sarah Palin

Smackdown by the 'Cuda! Oh, yeah, baby! He'll feel that one in the morning:)


My fellow C4Pers are burning it up tonight. Check out some of these comments:

bestbud - Sarah! = More betcha than thou!... Less bull crap than thou!... More spine than thou!... More rogue than thou!... More fight than thou!... Better leader than thou!... More USA than thou...more Presidential than thou!

Nancy - Would you like a Depends with your Facebook post? 4 out of 4 Facebook post recipients, recommend it.

Nancy - Okay RINO class, The Governor Palin Way of Governing, Being a Conservative, and Fighting Lefty Numbnuts is now in session.

What a great group we have here today! Thank you all for coming! As you will see in our lessons today, The Palin Way is the way to bring America back from the brink of disaster!

The first lesson is: Be conservative! (a whole row gets up and shuffles out the door) Well, that wasn't the start we were looking for.

Okay, the second lesson is: Serve your constituents and put the people first! (another row, beelines it out the door) Well, the last time I saw people move that fast, it was the American people to get Going Rogue!

Another lesson: Be assertive! Aggressive, even! (classmates pushing each other to get out the door) That was a great display of aggression, but not exactly as Governor Palin would do it. Or how I meant it.

But, the final lesson today is: Fight on all sides! Use sarcasm to your full advantage, and don't look back! (the rest, dejected and unwilling to get a spine, cower out the door).

I guess it is up to the American people to follow Governor Palin's lead.

- Oh-oh; she's done it now. They're going to unleash Boxer and Kerry on her again, with a wordy and stern editorial. Or worse, Al Gore will read his poem to her.

Monday, December 14, 2009

The Danger of Palin and Stanley Fish

A couple of great Palin articles. First up, a piece in the Milwaukee Examiner:

When people describe the danger of Sarah Palin, it's not about disagreement. Critics may not have even read her book, her articles or her biography. Some things are simply not allowed to be discussed...because of their inherent danger. Sarah Palin - her positions, political philosophy, career and work - is one of these innately dangerous things. And this kind of hatred and censorship has become accepted without question in much of the Western world.....

Liberal Bullies only want to destroy people who are fully willing to debate, but don't want to confront the real aggressors against and danger to freedom, tolerance and equality. Liberal Bullies are willing to lambaste our country that gives them freedom to disagree. However, their censure of dictatorships that murder and silence their own citizens is slow or nonexistant.

Liberal Bullies are willing to call America and Christianity tyrannical and oppressive. What of Uganda calling for the death penalty for homosexuality? What about Islamic theocrats such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who stone homosexuals? Lobbying against paying for abortion with our tax dollars is described as a dangerous threat to the republic's democracy - as if the ProLife lobby means to turn America into a theocracy. Where is the outcry against actual theocracies that are currently (as opposed to in time past) oppressing and killing people in the name of religion?

Sexism (the elephant in the room, whose existence is the woman politician's unique and one-sided liabilty) and the misogyny woven into the fabric of our culture is the real problem.

This is so, because even women accept and act on the assumptions, expectations, prejudices and judgments prioritzed and programmed for them by the partriarchal vision. The vision is not empirical and, thus, defensible, provable and fair; it is invisible and unquestionable. This is a truism that captures all women in its web - liberals like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi as well as conservatives like Sarah Palin.

Much of the ire and hatred they draw is virulent and unsubstantiated. This is not to say that there aren't reasons to disagree, rational reasons; but they are rarely ennumerated clearly and unemotionally. Too often women in politics who are dealing with the weighty issues are not challenged for the substance of their actions and philosophies, but are confronted with emotion about issues of little importance and value. Palin in a swimsuit is bad; her swimsuit pictures make her political prospects dubious. Obama in his swim trunks is described as asthtetically pleasing. He is the next coming of JFK:

In his recent book, The Audacity of Hope, Senator Obama concedes his deep misgivings about the possibility of a negative advertising campaign directed against him, a fate he has yet to experience.

But he can console himself that when it comes to having one's midriff on public display, he is in exalted political company. The New Year's Day beach photo of him in Hawaii draws inevitable comparisons with another similar photo taken of another telegenic Democrat - John F. Kennedy emerging from the sea to the delight of onlooking women.....

It is interesting that people have decided that all people must think alike, in order to call themselves liberal-progressive-democrats or conservative-republicans. It is natural to grow and develop. And people aren't seeds encoded to live pre-determined fates. Their brains grow and develop. After traumatic brain injury, they can teach their brains to go around downed pathways; they teach themselves to do and think and behave in ways they never had before - building new pathways in the great processing center that is the brain.

So, why is it that Sarah Palin is dangerous? Is it because people who don't agree with Sarah Palin think that people who like Sarah Palin; support her; or would vote for her, if she ran for office are easily led and will ignorantly absorb and repeat anything she says? If this is the case, then Sarah Palin isn't the danger; the human lemmings that are logically essential to this perspective are the societal danger.

If people are such sponges, then anyone with whom another disagrees is, necessarily, a potential danger. He can simply speak and change a person's mind. He can make any person do things he had no notion of doing before.

Human lemmings are 'true believers'. They live on both sides of the partisan line. They vomit 'talking points' in response to any question; they don't crack books about issues that are approached from angles they have decided they do not respect; and they 'hate' people who disagree with them.

Anyone who disagrees is 'dangerous', 'ignorant' and 'wrong'.

This may remind you of the settled science of Climate Change and the "apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - (the IPCC's)] fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007."

What is dangerous (to a democratic society and also to civil discourse) is the lack of tolerance and openness to different perspectives and supporting evidence offered to support or undermine popular claims. When did it become wrong to examine whether something is true?

The media and President Obama's administration are trying to pick targets for you - people for you to ignore, disdain, mock, distrust, fear...and hate. Don't they think that you can be trusted to make these judgments for yourself? Or did your judgment stop being sound after you voted them into office? Everyone knows Glenn Beck incites violence. Do you?

Everyone knows Sarah Palin is too dumb to find her way out of a paper bag. Then how is it that she was elected and governed as a mayor and then as a governor? This sounds like misogynistic sour grapes and the empty whining of educated derelicts. It is anonymous hate. Misogyny has infected this culture and when women challenge that restful virus, it bitterly erodes the images of these persons - women in politics - who are essential to democratic discourse. If you don't stand up against the claims that Sarah Palin is dangerous - not because of stoning anyone, or something actually dangerous can you be sure you or someone that you believe in won't be declared dangerous sometime soon?

And if you (and your government) come to think that you have lost the ability to think for yourselves, you may give away your liberty (and ability to make decisions and to express yourself) over to another's judgment. You will be paving the way to suppression of your very precious ideas. The freedom to your rights as you know them may become part of history - a distant, colorless memory.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Very good, applause all around.

Next, remember Stanley Fish, the New York Times guy who gave a "Going Rogue" a fair review? Well, he's got a follow-up column here:

The largely negative responses to my account of Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue” fall into four groups: (1) those who reject my distinction between biography, a genre tied to the requirement of factual accuracy, and autobiography, a genre dedicated to communicating another kind of truth; (2) those, like Caravaggio82, who reason that since the book “was ghost written pure and simple,” it could not possibly convey Palin’s “authentic voice”; (3) those who fault me for not speaking to Palin’s positions on creationism and the “birthers,” and thereby “helping to promote her” (Howie); and (4) those who were offended by my having referred to a sales clerk at the Strand book store as “a bright young thing.”

The distinction between biography and autobiography is really quite simple: the terms mark the difference between the effort of one person to get the details of another person’s life straight and the effort of one person to have her say about the kind of life she has led. In the writing of biography objectivity is both the goal and the standard for the biographer who stands at a distance from his subject. Autobiographers by definition have no distance from their subjects; they are in the business of expressing and revealing themselves, and while objectivity is often something they claim, failing to make good on that claim will not be regarded as fatal as it would be for a biographer. Instead it will be regarded as another piece of information about the personality whose portrait is being painted in words. To put in the simplest terms, a biographer is saying, “This is the way it was”; an autobiographer is saying, “This is the way I saw it and remember it.”

This does not mean that I “endorse the idea that lying is acceptable in an autobiography” (John K. Wilson) or that I am urging that we take what Sarah Palin “says at face value” (M.J.M.) or that I regard “deliberate factual inaccuracies” as “higher truths” (Lou) or that I don’t “think that facts matter at all” (skeptonomist). I am just observing that the truth or falsity of an autobiographer’s assertions is not the main focus of a reader’s interest because the autobiographer’s claim on our attention resides elsewhere — in the vividness and energy with which a significant life is being recalled. (If it were discovered that St. Augustine never stole those pears, would we throw his Confessions away or downgrade the book?) The fact that others would recall the life differently and accuse the writer of “factual inaccuracies” is certainly to be noted, but we do not expect an autobiographer to respond by pleading guilty and confessing that her ex-husband or his opponent in the primary had it right.

But isn’t this all irrelevant anyway if, as John Frum declares, “Mrs. Palin didn’t write the book”?............

Her name is on it because, no matter how many of the words are literally hers, she is its presiding spirit. We must assume that, like a director who reviews the work of his editor, she had the right of approval at every moment and could have said (probably did say), “No, that’s not what I had in mind” or “Yes, that captures my sentiments and recollections entirely.”

”Law and Order” creator Dick Wolf could not possibly supervise, never mind write, every script churned out by his production company, and yet TV critics have no hesitation in saying about a particular episode that it conveys Wolf’s usual message or embodies his vision of society. In his new book, “The Audacity to Win,” David Plouffe, campaign adviser to Barack Obama, recalls that when Obama decided to write his famous “race” speech, he said, “I know what I want to say,” and that he would call the speechwriter “and give him some initial guidance.” The rest is history and everyone refers to the speech as Obama’s. In the same way, “Going Rogue” is Sarah Palin’s book, for good or ill.

If I may mix metaphors, the issue of ghost writing is a red herring, a point made inadvertently by those posters who both deny Palin the title of author and excoriate her for her lies. If she didn’t write the book, she can’t be lying in it, and if she can be called either a liar or a truth-teller, she wrote the book.

In saying this I am not, as a number of posters asserted, affirming and promoting her agenda. Connie Boyd complains that I have “written a love note to [Palin] in the New York Times,” and she asks, “Do you have a sense of responsibility left?” I have a sense of responsibility to the column I sat down to write, not to the columns some readers wanted me to write or thought I had in fact written.........

To the charge that I displayed sexism when I called a book store employee a “bright young thing,” I respond by answering “yes” to the question posed by Sarah: “Would you have referred to a bright young male clerk as a thing?” Been there, done that. Bright-young-thingness is gender neutral; it refers to the eagerness, innocence and energy in the faces of young people at the start of what they are sure is going to be a glorious adventure. Long ago, I was a bright young thing myself....


Go drop Stanley a nice comment. Sounds like he gets enough of the other kind:)

P.S. I should mention that it appears that KTUU has a second video of Palin's Elmendorf book signing up here.

Palin's (and Parnell's) Surplus

Some good news for Alaskans. Thanks to ACES (Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, a bill Palin championed) the state could be looking at a $500 million dollar surplus next year:

Alaska would have surpluses at the end of the current and 2011 fiscal years under budget proposals unveiled Monday by Gov. Sean Parnell, thanks largely to high oil prices and an oil-tax system that has drawn complaints from much of the industry.

Under the Republican governor's $10.5 billion spending plan for fiscal 2011, the state would wind up with a surplus of nearly $500 million. Of that, Parnell is proposing to put $400 million into a new college scholarship program. He is also proposing healthy increases in state capital spending, which he called "an investment to build our economy and our future....."

Alaska relies on oil royalties, taxes and fees for nearly 90 percent of its general government revenues.

For the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, Parnell expects a surplus of $384 million -- a brighter picture than was visible in the spring, when the legislature drew up the spending plan amid highly volatile oil prices and when budget deficits were expected.

"That surplus means we will not have to draw on our savings," he said in his speech. "But it does not mean we should wildly spend more money...."

Parnell defended the state's oil tax system, called Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES.

The system, passed by the legislature in 2007, was a hallmark accomplishment of his predecessor, Gov. Sarah Palin. It sharply increased marginal tax rates when oil prices are high, while offering investment credits for exploration and development.

Although companies have complained publicly, Parnell told reporters at a news conference, he has not yet seen evidence that the tax system should be changed.

"If they want changes, I want them to justify it, because I'm not about taking money out of Alaska coffers so it can go to investments in Nigeria. I want jobs for Alaskans," he said.

He said he is unconvinced that delays or cutbacks in Alaska oil activity are a response to the state's oil tax.

"Show me the data, because, bottom line is, there's a lot of work that's not happening around the world due to global recession. There's a lot of work not happening in Alaska because of federal regulatory delays," he said.

In meetings with industry officials to date, Parnell said, four or five companies have reported to him that ACES is working the way it should. Representatives from two or three independent companies -- including Renaissance Alaska LLC -- have thanked him for the new tax system because they are in line for generous exploration credits, he said.

Representatives from two companies -- ConocoPhillips and Armstrong Resources LLC -- have told him they do want changes to the tax law, he said.


I personally think they probably will have to put like a ten year tax rate or cap guarantee or something into the mix before the pipeline will get built. That's reasonable; Palin has said as much. As a matter of fact, the Palin adminstration originally put a ten year predicatability thing into AGIA ( I think it was AGIA) but the legislature took it out over concerns of constitutionality (which was dumb, in my opinion).

But those negotations will only be fair to all involved if the state maintains its position of strength. The minute they start to prostrate themselves before the oil companies again, it's all over. They'll smell the weakness and zero in on it like blood in the water. I hope Parnell inherited some of Palin's backbone.

Parnell may not rival Palin for star power, but so far, he seems to be doing just fine:)

Sean Parnell and his family.

Vids and Pics - O'Reilly on Palin and Conan

And I love this pic from Craighead's website. The First Dude chillin' in the corner during the campaign:

Slideshow of some of Craighead's campaign pics:

Find more photos like this on Team Sarah

America Under Barack Obama

Great interview with Nat Hentoff by John W. Whitehead found here. I don't agree with everything in it. For example, while I don't believe that Bush was evil, I was never under the illusion that he was remotely conservative. He was just better than any of the alternatives. And I don't believe he was ruled by Cheney:

....A self-described uncategorizable libertarian, Hentoff adds he is also a “Jewish atheist, civil libertarian, pro-lifer.” Accordingly, he has angered nearly every political faction and remains one of a few who has stuck to his principles through his many years of work, regardless of the trouble it stirred up. For instance, when he announced his opposition to abortion he alienated numerous colleagues, and his outspoken denunciation of President Bill Clinton only increased his isolation in liberal circles (He said that Clinton had "done more harm to the Constitution than any president in American history," and called him "a serial violator of our liberties.")......

John W. Whitehead: When Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator in 2005, he introduced a bill to limit the Patriot Act. Now that he is president, he has endorsed the Patriot Act as is. What do you think happened with Obama?

Nat Hentoff: I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had. An example is ObamaCare, which is now embattled in the Senate. If that goes through the way Obama wants, we will have something very much like the British system. If the American people have their health care paid for by the government, depending on their age and their condition, they will be subject to a health commission just like in England which will decide if their lives are worth living much longer.

[Hmmmmm, can you say, "Death Panels?" Moving on....]

In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.

So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.

JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?

NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense, "evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.

In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of everything we do on the phone and on the internet.

Obama has done nothing about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.

JW: Obama is not reversing the Bush policies as he promised. But even in light of this, many on the Left are very, very quiet about Obama. Why is that?

NH: I am an atheist, although I very much admire and have been influenced by many traditionally religious people. I say this because the Left has taken what passes for their principles as an absolute religion. They don't think anymore. They just react. When they have somebody like Obama whom they put into office, they believed in the religious sense and, of course, that is a large part of the reason for their silence on these issues. They are very hesitant to criticize Obama, but that is beginning to change. Even on the cable network MSNBC, some of the strongest proponents of Obama are now beginning to question, if I may use their words, their "deity."

JW: Is the so-called health commission that you referred to earlier what some people are referring to as death panels? Is that too strong a word?

NH: That term was used with hyperbole about the parts of the health care bill where doctors are mandated, if people are on Medicare and of a certain age or in serious physical condition, to counsel them on their end-of-life alternatives. I don't believe that was a death panel. It was done to get the Medicare doctors to not spend too much money on them.

[Wait, how is that not a death panel? I agree that end-of-life counseling is not the be-all end-all of the death panel issue (I was an early advocate that Palin expand the argument beyond that one clause), but it's still euthanasia by default.]

The death panel issue arose with Tom Daschle, who was originally going to be the Health Czar. Daschle became enamored with the British system and wrote a book about health care, which influenced President Obama.

In England, you have what I would call government-imposed euthanasia. Under the British healthcare system, there is a commission that decides whether or not, based on your age and physical condition, the government should continue to pay for your health. That leads to the government not doing it and you gradually or suddenly die. The present Stimulus Bill sets up the equivalent commission in the United States similar to that which is in England.

The tipoff was months ago on the ABC network. President Obama was given a full hour to describe and endorse his health plan. A woman in the audience asked Obama about her mother. Her mother was, I believe, 101 years old and was in need of a certain kind of procedure. Her doctor didn't want to do it because of her age. However, another doctor did and told this woman there is a joy of life in this person. The woman asked President Obama how he would deal with this sort of thing, and Obama said we cannot consider the joy of life in this situation. He said I would advise her to take a pain killer. That is the essence of the President of the United States.

JW: Do you think Obama is shallow?

NH: It's much worse than that. Obama has little, if any, principles except to aggrandize and make himself more and more important. You see that in his foreign policy. Obama lacks a backbone—both a constitutional backbone and a personal backbone. This is a man who is causing us and will cause us a great deal of harm constitutionally and personally. I say personally because I am 84 years old, and this is the first administration that has scared me in terms of my lifespan.

JW: But he is praised for his charisma and great smile. He can make people believe things just by his personality.

NH: That was a positive factor in his election. A good many people voted for Obama, and I'm not only talking about the black vote. A lot of people voted for Obama because of our history of racial discrimination in this country. They felt good even though they didn't really know much about him and may have had some doubts. But at least they showed the world we could elect a black president. And that is still part of what he is riding on. Except that, too, is diminishing. In the recent Virginia election, the black vote diminished. Now why was that? I think a lot of black folks are wondering what this guy is really going to do, not only for them but for the country. If the country is injured, they will be injured. That may be sinking in.

JW: One of the highest unemployment rates in the country is among African-Americans.

NH: Not only that, the general unemployment rate is going to continue for a long time and for all of us. I have never heard so many heart-wrenching stories of all kinds of people all across the economic spectrum. As usual, the people who are poorest—the blacks, Hispanics and disabled people—are going to suffer more than anyone else under the Obama administration. This is a dishonest administration, because it is becoming clear that the unemployment statistics of the Obama administration are not believable. I can't think of a single area where Obama is not destructive.

JW: A lot of people we represent and I talk to feel that their government does not hear them, that their representatives do not listen to them anymore. As a result, you have these Tea Party protests which the Left has criticized. What do you think of the Tea Party protests?

NH: I spent a lot of time studying our Founders and people like Samuel Adams and the original Tea Party. What Adams and the Sons of Liberty did in Boston was spread the word about the abuses of the British. They had Committees of Correspondence that got the word out to the colonies. We need Committees of Correspondence now, and we are getting them. That is what is happening with the Tea Parties.

I wrote a column called "The Second American Revolution" about the fact that people are acting for themselves as it happened with the Sons of Liberty which spread throughout the colonies. That was a very important awakening in this country. A lot of people in the adult population have a very limited idea as to why they are Americans, why we have a First Amendment or a Bill of Rights.

JW: Less than 3% of high school students can pass the immigration test while over 90% of people from foreign countries can pass it. The questions are simple—such as, "What is the supreme law of the land?" or "Who wrote the Declaration of Independence?" Civic education in the United States is basically dead.

NH: I have been in schools around the country, and I have written on education for years. Once, I was once doing a profile on Justice William Brennan and I was in his chambers, and Brennan asked, "How do we get the words of the Bill of Rights into the lives of the students?" Well, it is not difficult. You tell them stories. When I speak to students, I tell them why we have a First Amendment. I tell them about the Committees of Correspondence. I tell them how in a secret meeting of the Raleigh Tavern in Virginia, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, who did not agree with each other, started a Committee of Correspondence.

Young people get very excited when they hear why they are Americans. It is not hard to do. We hear talk now about reforming public education. There are billions of dollars at stake for such a reform. But I have not heard Arne Duncan, who is the U.S. Education Secretary, mention once the civic illiteracy in the country.

JW: Adults are constitutionally illiterate as well.

NH: A few years ago, I was lecturing at the Columbia Journalism School of Education. I asked them about what was happening to the Fourth Amendment. I said, "By the way, do you know what is in the Fourth Amendment?" One student responded, "Is that the right to bear arms?" It's hard to believe these are bright students.

JW: I ask law students who attend our Summer Internship Program to name the five freedoms in the First Amendment. I have yet to find one who can.

NH: That is a stunner.

JW: You lived through the McCarthy era in the 1950s. Is it worse now than it was then?

NH: McCarthy's regime was ended by Senators who realized that he had gone too far. What we have now may be more insidious. What we have now in America is a surveillance society. We have no idea how much the government knows and how much the CIA even knows about average citizens. The government is not supposed to be doing this in this country. They listen in on our phone calls. I am not exaggerating because I have studied this a long time. You have to be careful about what you do, about what you say, and that is more dangerous than what was happening with McCarthy, but the technology the government now possesses is so much more insidious.

JW: You don't sound very optimistic.

NH: If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson were brought back to life and they looked at television and read the papers, they would not recognize the country.

The media has been very bad about informing us about what is going on. They focus on surface things. They do not focus enough on the fact that the Fourth Amendment is on life support and that we need a return to transparency in government. The media ignores what is really going on.

But I am optimistic. I have to be optimistic, as I know you are. That is why you keep writing and keep doing what you do. You have to do this because we have been through very dark periods before. There are enough people who are starting to be actively involved that we can turn things around. And we need to encourage others to become involved.

Awww.... Sarah's Wrist Needs a Rub

From the ADN:

Jeffrey Judge of Eagle River has a Sarah Palin superfan in the family: His father.

"He took down the family pictures and put her on the wall," said Tammy, Judge's wife. "So now when you go over there, she's like, staring at you," his daughter added.

Don't tell Judge's dad, but he's getting a personalized, signed copy of Palin's book for Christmas.... Judge, a 37-year-old technical sergeant in the Air Force, waited three-and-a-half hours for Palin's signature. "She thanked me for my service," he said.

Palin has signed many as 5,100 books in a day during the tour, said Chuck Heath, her father. "At night my wife or her aunt would giver her a massage on her wrist," he said.

Trevino likes that Palin is anti-abortion and that she kept her son when she learned he would be born with Down syndrome. "That means a lot to me," she said. "And then the fact that she stood by her daughter when she was pregnant."

"I had a baby at a young age too," Trevino said. "And without my parents' help, I wouldn't have been able to do a very good job."

ADN video here.

Photo gallery here.

To the Underground and Back

I survived. Another trip to the underbelly of the internet and back, and some fresh new tidbits to show for it.

Rumor Mills:

Some are busting a blood vessel about Meg Stapleton. They're all wondering where she is. (Gasp!) Is she bailing on Sarah?

Well, it's true that she hasn't been seen on the book tour, but she has been quoted in articles recently speaking on Sarah's behalf. The answer may be something quite simple: Meg had a baby recently. She probably wants to stick close to home for awhile. This is all speculation, of course, but that's my best guess.

They're also going crazy with the idea that Meg is depressed, or that someone close to Palin was or is depressed. I have no idea, but if I were to guess, I'd say it would be Kris Perry who was served an ethics complaint while standing at the death bed of a relative earlier this year.

Hmmmm... Tank Jones was on Dan Fagan's show. I haven't listened to it, but you can download the conversation here. It's hour 3. Why you would want to torture yourself, I don't know, but maybe you're morbidly curious like me.

Anyway, he says that Levi's putting whatever incriminating dirt he supposedly has on Palin in the book. I say, "Bring it on." Lay it all out there, buddy. If you're going to be a Scumbag, go full throttle Scum!

The question is, will I read the book or not? Should I keep my distance and my sanity, or give the Douchebag a few bucks and give into my morbid curiosity? That is the question.

Now, on to the pictures. Here's the Elmendorf book-signing:

And the latest look at the Palin's new house:

So much for that whole movin' to Montana thing:)

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Probably the Only Young Turk Vid I'll Ever Post

John Ziegler enters the lion's den:

SP Video Sunday - UPDATED

The above pics are from an event at the Governor's mansion earlier this year. These and more are at Team Sarah here. Just keep clicking "Next" on the page to see more. The woman to Sarah's right in the above pic is one of her staffers. Others appear to be Alaska Natives who may be dropping by for a visit, or they could be part of her rural subcabinet.

A couple of random older vids:

A cool tribute by Piper4444205

And video of Palin's book signing at the military base in Alaska today is here.